But the standard processes themselves are so much more advanced than they were to start with.
Former Boulder DA investigator Tom Bennett stated in 2004: "The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said."It`s minute DNA, like from a cough or sneeze.... You can`t just jump to conclusion it`s positive proof that will trace back to the killer."
name names, Jayce.
I've been at this WAY to long to put up with that garbage, Jayce. John Ramsey, early on in this case, said that he had hired private investigators to find the real killer because he didn't trust the police (all the while swearing he cooperated! LOL). But in his deposition, he finally admitted that was a lie and that the investigators were only looking for stuff to produce reasonable doubt at trial, including, and I swear I'm not making this up, targeting witnesses for dirty tricks. These same people have, in the last few days, been on television touting evidence that was disproven a long time ago.
Not in this day of DNA tests that are so supersensitive they can pick up stuff from months before. DNA IS a powerful science, Jayce, but it's not the end-all be-all. Unless it's semen from a rape, it has to have other evidence along with it. No one can prove this DNA is from an intruder because no one can prove as yet there WAS an intruder in that house that night. In fact, even if the DNA isn't relevant at all, that doesn't mean there was no intruder. Did you ever think of that?